In this edition of the Situation Report structural changes at NIH raise serious concerns for researchers as new limits on grant applications and AI use go into effect. States prepare for deep Medicaid cuts as they navigate the fallout from federal funding reductions and new policy mandates, while the politicization of science continues to undermine evidence-based policymaking. We also cover misleading claims from a recent FDA panel on antidepressants, the White House’s next proposed rescissions package, and how AcademyHealth is bringing the latest research on Dobbs to Capitol Hill. Finally, if missing public health data has disrupted your work, we need your story by August 8.
In today’s issue:
- NIH to Limit Funding Applications; Director Meets with Staff Following Bethesda Declaration
- States’ Face Difficult Decisions Amidst Medicaid Changes
- Study Reveals Stark Divide in how Democrats and Republicans Cite Science
- FDA Panel on Antidepressants Promotes Misinformation
- White House Readies Next Rescissions Bill
- AcademyHealth Continues to Bring Evidence on Dobbs to Policymakers
- Has Missing Health Data Disrupted Your Research? Share Your Story.
NIH to Limit Funding Applications; Director Meets with Staff Following Bethesda Declaration
Structural changes continue at NIH, with the recent notice that researchers seeking to obtain some of the agency’s reduced grant funding will be limited to submitting six applications per calendar year. The new policy also prohibits applicants from using generative AI and is purportedly designed to prevent large numbers of proposals from overwhelming the NIH grant review system. Importantly, this limit applies not just to original applications, but also to grant resubmissions, renewals, and revisions, which some experts say will harm researchers already struggling amid NIH grant freezes and squash collaboration. Some researchers believe that this policy change is another step by the Trump administration to further gut research funding. Others argue that such a cap is warranted and could prevent researchers from abusing the grant system. The policy will go into effect on September 25, 2025; it is unclear whether applicants will have an opportunity to appeal penalties applied if their award is flagged for AI use.
Meanwhile, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya met with 38 of the hundreds of staffers who had signed an open letter to him last month with concerns about grant terminations, staff firings, and the overall politicization of science under the Trump administration. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration after the Great Barrington Declaration that Bhattacharya co-authored in 2020 to protest pandemic lockdowns, was signed by 484 NIH staffers, 69 Nobel laureates, former NIH institute and program directors, and other scientific leaders. NIH staffers report that although the NIH Director said he wouldn’t retaliate against NIH staffers who signed the letter, as the EPA did against 139 employees who penned a letter criticizing that agency’s head, he made no promises to reverse agency policy. So far, no additional roundtables with staff have been scheduled. The cuts to funding and staff at NIH and other agencies threaten the advancement of critical health research; health services researchers should share their experiences on how these cuts impact their work with policymakers and stress the importance of protecting data and funding to advance health care.
As researchers lose access to funding and data sources, AcademyHealth is proud to stand up for robust research funding and evidence to support policymaking. You can learn more about how we’re working to restore public health data and how to share your support here.
States’ Face Difficult Decisions Amidst Medicaid Changes
President Trump’s sweeping tax bill, which calls for the largest reduction in federal support for health care in the United States’ history, puts states in a difficult position. Tasked with implementing new work requirements while navigating new limits on provider taxes that they have previously relied on for federal support for their Medicaid programs, states are having to consider either raising other taxes, reducing benefits for people enrolled in Medicaid, or reducing the number of people who are enrolled. Hospitals will also feel the impact as they experience less funding from Medicaid and more patients without coverage. Some hospitals will have to reduce services while others may be forced to close entirely. Many states will be tasked with balancing their budgets after mass cuts, and while some states have the resources, most will struggle replacing billions of dollars in losses. Among the limited options, states are considering scaling back services such as vision, dental, and home and community-based services, or decreasing rates to facilities such as hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and maternity wards to adhere to their states’ balanced budget amendments. Health care advocates worry about the fallout of these changes for all patients, but especially for children. Like what happened with the COVID-19 public health emergency unwinding, children could lose their coverage simply due to administrative changes as states and patients alike struggle to adjust to the new bureaucratic landscape.
HSR professionals can help by analyzing the effects of these changes in real time, identifying which populations are most at risk, and evaluating the tradeoffs of different state-level policy responses. Researchers bring a crucial lens to this issue by making visible the lived consequences of budget cuts.
Study Reveals Stark Divide in how Democrats and Republicans Cite Science
A recent study published in Science reveals a stark partisan divide in how U.S. political actors engage with scientific research in policymaking. The study utilized large databases of Congressional documents as well as survey responses from the public and “political elites”— people affiliated with a government, journalism, thinktank, or lobbying organization. From 1995 to 2021, both Democratic and Republican congressional committees and affiliated think tanks increased their citation of scientific studies, but Democrats consistently referenced science more frequently, across more disciplines, and with greater alignment to peer-reviewed, influential research. One of the most troubling findings from this study was the lack of overlap in cited studies and subject matter between the parties, only about 5-6 percent, underscoring a lack of shared factual foundation in policy debates. These trends suggest that scientific evidence is often selectively used to support preexisting ideological agendas rather than as a neutral basis for bipartisan problem-solving. An example of this discrepancy can be seen in the recently released “Make America Great Again” report which cited several studies that did not exist, suggesting that political objectives were justified by questionable or non-existent science, rather than evidence-based data informing high-quality public health directives.
The weaponization of research has likely contributed to the growing distrust of science among the general public, a trend that the study also identified in their survey responses. Now, more than ever, it is critical that we emphasize the non-partisan nature of evidence-based policy, and AcademyHealth is proud to help champion this objective.
It is essential to provide researchers with the skills to communicate evidence clearly and engage effectively in the policy process. AcademyHealth offers professional development opportunities to support this work. The Health Policy Orientation helps participants understand how policy is made, how to engage with policy leaders, and how to navigate the current health policy landscape at both the federal and state levels. Communicating for Impact and Communicating to Build Trust offer practical strategies for crafting clear, compelling messages that resonate with a range of audiences. Sign up for our course interest forms to receive updates and be notified when registration opens.
FDA Panel on Antidepressants Promotes Misinformation
On Monday, the FDA convened a panel of ten experts convened to discuss the use of antidepressants, specifically SSRIs, during pregnancy. This comes after Secretary Kennedy has called for investigation of the risks of antidepressants, with the MAHA report claiming they lead to major, long-term repercussions for children’s health. While the panel had promised to present a diversity of viewpoints, psychologists who watched the convening report that there was an evident bias against antidepressants, with nearly all panelists going against medical consensus to emphasize the potential risks of antidepressants during pregnancy. Notably, there was a panelist who runs a clinic that focuses on tapering off psychiatric medicines. Autism, miscarriage, and birth defects were among the risks cited, along with claims that depression can go away on its own. There is no convincing evidence linking SSRIs with autism or birth defects, and mixed results on a slightly higher risk for miscarriage. Ultimately, the decision is left to the pregnant person , but psychiatrists emphasize that the evidence shows that risks of untreated depression during pregnancy most often outweighs any potential risks from the medication itself.
Beyond raising concerns over the possible risks of SSRI use during pregnancy, several panelists made bold claims about the efficacy of these antidepressants at large. Asserting that data is manipulated by pharmaceutical companies, some panelists even went so far as to claim that depression is not an illness and is merely the experience of the full array of human emotions. These sentiments demonstrate a growing denial of evidence, as has been seen in other federal convenings like the vaccine advisory council. In this era of distrust, it is more important than ever to instill confidence in evidence-based practices and to assess potential biases of statements refuting the literature base.
White House Readies Next Rescissions Bill
The White House intends to send Capitol Hill a second request to claw back congressionally-approved funding — this time targeting the Department of Education, according to a White House aide granted anonymity to share plans not yet made public. Less than a week after congressional Republicans approved the administration’s first rescissions package to slash $9 billion for public broadcast and foreign aid, the White House aide said Tuesday that lawmakers would soon receive President Donald Trump’s next round of desired funding cuts to education programs. These packages cut funding from bipartisan appropriations laws through a partisan process, hyper-charging the breakdown of trust in Congress. The loss of bipartisan bills means sharper swings in funding levels and priorities as congressional control changes and a further erosion in the ability of researchers and health systems to predict and plan.
AcademyHealth Continues to Bring Evidence on Dobbs to Policymakers
Last week, AcademyHealth delivered a briefing to congressional aides about the ramifications of the landmark Supreme Court ruling three years ago in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned the longstanding federal right to abortion. Researchers representing AcademyHealth’s reproductive health Research Community shared the latest findings about the ripple effects of Dobbs across maternal and reproductive health, the health care workforce, and state-level policy. Over 40 Congressional offices attended the briefing to learn from research and clinical experts how the ruling has reshaped the landscape of reproductive health care across the United States, with real-world impacts on health care access, experiences, and outcomes for people across the country. It is critical that researchers continue to disseminate their work to policymakers, and AcademyHealth brings our members to them regularly.
Has Missing Health Data Disrupted Your Research? Share Your Story.
AcademyHealth is part of a federal lawsuit aimed at restoring public health datasets that were removed earlier this year. While our legal case is strong, we need your help to demonstrate the real-world consequences of these losses.
Have changes or removals to key datasets, including PRAMS, HIV, diabetes, mental health, or LGBTQIA+ health data, hindered our research or affected your ability to serve communities? If so, we want to hear from you.
Submit your story by August 8 to help us show the tangible impact on health services research and strengthen the case for restoring these critical data resources.
How to share your experience:
- Fill out this brief submission form here.
- Or email Kristin Rosengren, Chief Strategy Officer, at Kristin.Rosengren@academyhealth.org.
Thank you for helping protect the data that drives meaningful health research and policy.
Previous Updates
This is the latest in a series of Situation Report updates from AcademyHealth. You can find prior issues here.
We’re pleased to offer this work as a free resource, and if you’d like to support our efforts to keep it going, we’d truly appreciate your donation. You can contribute here. Thank you for your support!